Question for Protestants?

[Dave_Noonan]

I didn’t read the specific book you referred to, but did read other of his books. Regarding your second sentence, I also try to evaluate “based on the evidence and logic presented” - I would also add, “and omitted”.
Since I haven’t read the book you refer to, I would appreciate it if you could cite us a specific alternative to the Magisterium that he offers there, if he offers one. He does not regard Sola Scriptura as authoritative, so does he present a third option?

His alternative view, in general, is a greater practice of humility in the teaching office, greater collegiality and deference to areas of competency within the Church, and learning to live with and learn from past errors. In general, it’s admitting that humans have shortcomings, make mistakes and knowing that, to try to do better going forward.

I’m really not sure what the alternative has to do with the discussion (seems more like an in-house problem/debate for Catholics), but there you go. This approach seems healthy, realistic and Christian to me.

 

[commenter]

His alternative view, in general, is a greater practice of humility in the teaching office, greater collegiality and deference to areas of competency within the Church, and learning to live with and learn from past errors. In general, it’s admitting that humans have shortcomings, make mistakes and knowing that, to try to do better going forward.

I’m really not sure what the alternative has to do with the discussion (seems more like an in-house problem/debate for Catholics), but there you go. This approach seems healthy, realistic and Christian to me.

On CAF, the Magisterium supporters, and Sola Scriptura supporters, both have described their models in detail, so they can be compared and contrasted, especially the question of how authority is derived, and how reliability might be tested. My impression is that both Catholics and Protestants were interested in their own, and other, model.

I think we all would be interested in Kung’s model, too. Where does HE derive authority for his statements? How can teachings by him, or his followers, be tested for reliability? I would be curious why he does not accept Sola Scriptura for instance. This is very relevant to this thread.

The Magisterium people, and Sola Scriptura people, have played fair. We have shown our cards, so to speak. Since most of this thread has specifically focused on alternatives, Kung’s alternative - if he has one - is relevant.

 

[commenter]

Fr. Kung (in his writings) is a Modernist. That doesn’t really answer the question previously posed, as to what authority he follows. Modernists are their own authority. He, and other Modernists, quote the Bible and Magisterium when it suits their purposes. But they are most influenced by the trends of comtemporary secular society, especially whatever is pushed by the media.

I don’t in any way judge the man himself, just writings, that may or may not reflect his later, personal beliefs. If you like C. S. Lewis, look up his essays where he talks about the need for an alliance between those Christians who follow the Magisterium, and those who follow Sola Scriptura, against this point of view. Over 60 years ago he accurately predicted how powerful this Modernist movement would be, now closely aligned with the media and government.

 

[steido01]

I don’t in any way judge the man himself, just writings, that may or may not reflect his later, personal beliefs. If you like C. S. Lewis, look up his essays where he talks about the need for an alliance between those Christians who follow the Magisterium, and those who follow Sola Scriptura, against this point of view. Over 60 years ago he accurately predicted how powerful this Modernist movement would be, now closely aligned with the media and government.

You’ve piqued my curiosity. Which Lewis books do you recommend?

 

[GKC]

You’ve piqued my curiosity. Which Lewis books do you recommend?

For my part, anything he wrote. But for the essays, the classic collections are GOD IN THE DOCK, CHRISTIAN REFLECTIONS, WEIGHT OF GLORY, in particular. Walter Hooper has edited and released a number of additional collections, mainly reshuffling the content of these books. I have paid little attention to those.

GKC, Lewis collector/50 years+

 

[commenter]

For my part, anything he wrote. But for the essays, the classic collections are GOD IN THE DOCK, CHRISTIAN REFLECTIONS, WEIGHT OF GLORY, in particular. Walter Hooper has edited and released a number of additional collections, mainly reshuffling the content of these books. I have paid little attention to those.

GKC, Lewis collector/50 years+

True, most of what he wrote is partly or indirectly to support that alliance between those 2 groups (Magisterium/Tradition, and Sola Scriptura supporters). I am looking for that one essay, or more than one, where he said the important split is not between “high” and “low” church, but between those who have a standard of belief, other than themselves on one side - and those others, who make it up as they go along. That second group are sometimes called the Modernists, including some Catholics and Protestants. The second group is really the enemy of conversion and sanctity, as well as truth.

He called for something called “deep church”. If believing Catholics and Protestants had heeded his advice and cooperated against the real opponent, it might be a different world today.

“Deep Church” is reminiscent of his term “Deep Heaven”, from his novels. He was Deep. We miss him today.

 

[GKC]

True, most of what he wrote is partly or indirectly to support that alliance between those 2 groups (Magisterium/Tradition, and Sola Scriptura supporters). I am looking for that one essay, or more than one, where he said the important split is not between “high” and “low” church, but between those who have a standard of belief, other than themselves on one side - and those others, who make it up as they go along. That second group are sometimes called the Modernists, including some Catholics and Protestants. The second group is really the enemy of conversion and sanctity, as well as truth.

He called for something called “deep church”. If believing Catholics and Protestants had heeded his advice and cooperated against the real opponent, it might be a different world today.

“Deep Church” is reminiscent of his term “Deep Heaven”, from his novels. He was Deep. We miss him today.

“Deep Church” occurs in a letter he wrote to the Church Times in Feb, 1952. The disjuncture he makes in that letter is not between modernists who do not admit a magisterium, and others who do, but as between Modernists and Supernaturalists. Not sure if appears in an essay. But I’ll thumb through a few essay collections, while smoking my pipe, over the next hour or so. Postponing my completion of Clark’s G.K. CHESTERTON: THINKING BACKWARD, LOOKING FORWARD.

GKC

 

[commenter]

While people are researching what C. S. Lewis wrote, advising Sola Scriptura and Magisterium people to cooperate, I wanted to respond to Dave Noonan’s earlier (name removed by moderator)ut. My response is:

1. Hans Kung may oppose the Magisterium but he also opposes Sola Scriptura. He would not be a credible resource for a Sola Scriptura supporter to refute the Magisterium, since his writings refute even more so Sola Scriptura. If you like Luther, Calvin, Billy Graham or C S Lewis, his writings would refute their point of view, too.
2. Fr. Kung does not in the writings I have read give a better source of authority for his views than the Magisterium, nor better than Sola Scriptura. That’s why it’s not especially helpful to bring him into the discussion, because he’s “hiding his cards” so to speak. He doesn’t tell you what platform he himself is viewing from.
3. I doubt he would identify himself as a “modernist” but that is how I would identify him. That isn’t a third source of authority, it is a catchall category for those who admire the trends of “modern” society.

 

[GKC]

While people are researching what C. S. Lewis wrote, advising Sola Scriptura and Magisterium people to cooperate, I wanted to respond to Dave Noonan’s earlier (name removed by moderator)ut. My response is:

1. Hans Kung may oppose the Magisterium but he also opposes Sola Scriptura. He would not be a credible resource for a Sola Scriptura supporter to refute the Magisterium, since his writings refute even more so Sola Scriptura. If you like Luther, Calvin, Billy Graham or C S Lewis, his writings would refute their point of view, too.
2. Fr. Kung does not in the writings I have read give a better source of authority for his views than the Magisterium, nor better than Sola Scriptura. That’s why it’s not especially helpful to bring him into the discussion, because he’s “hiding his cards” so to speak. He doesn’t tell you what platform he himself is viewing from.
3. I doubt he would identify himself as a “modernist” but that is how I would identify him. That isn’t a third source of authority, it is a catchall category for those who admire the trends of “modern” society.

I’m looking. But I don’t expect to find that particular pairing.

And Lewis did not personally advocate sola scriptura. If that is what is being sought, I’ll go back to reading the book on Chesterton.

GKC

 

[commenter]

I’m looking. But I don’t expect to find that particular pairing.

And Lewis did not personally advocate sola scriptura. If that is what is being sought, I’ll go back to reading the book on Chesterton.

GKC

Lewis respected that point of view, and cooperated with their ministries, and has been enormously respected by people and scholars who do support that view. He also respected, cooperated with, and has been endorsed by people who support the Magisterium.

But let us know about that book on Chesterton. I’m a member of my local Chesterton Society. My only complaint about C S Lewis is that he only occasionally credits the writer from whom he borrowed enormously.

 

[GKC]

Lewis respected that point of view, and cooperated with their ministries, and has been enormously respected by people and scholars who do support that view. He also respected, cooperated with, and has been endorsed by people who support the Magisterium.

But let us know about that book on Chesterton. I’m a member of my local Chesterton Society. My only complaint about C S Lewis is that he only occasionally credits the writer from whom he borrowed enormously.

Yet he also is attacked by Reformed types for totally failing to endorse SS, and accounted only tenuously a Christian for it.

Clark’s book is episodic, and has as its basis a consideration of Chesterton’s works viewed in the light of science fiction(though not in any rigorous detail), though it is, in addition, a fair survey of all his work, within the constraints of 200 pages, less notes.

As I said, I’ve collected (massively) Chesterton and Lewis for roughly 50 years (not to mention a lot of other, similar, folk); Chesterton came first to my hands, and I collected him far more systematically. I have no complaints with Lewis on the subject.

GKC.